Delhi High Court - Orders
X vs State & Anr on 29 July, 2021
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
$~ 28 & $~ 29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1655/2021
X ..... Petitioner
Through: (appearance not given).
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, APP for
State.
+ CRL.M.C. 1657/2021
X ..... Petitioner
Through: (appearance not given).
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, APP for
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING)
ORDER
% 29.07.2021 CRL.M.A. Nos.11653-11654/2021 (Exemption) in CRL.M.C. 1655/2021 CRL.M.A. Nos.11656-11657/2021 (Exemption) in CRL.M.C. 1657/2021
1. The present applications have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner seeking exemption from filing the certified copies of the annexures, dim annexures/annexures without proper margins and duly attested/notarized affidavits.
2. Insofar as the filing of the certified copies of the annexures, dim annexures/annexures without proper margins are concerned, the same is allowed subject to just exceptions.
3. So far as the filing of duly attested/notarized attested affidavits is concerned, the same is also allowed subject to the petitioner filing the same within a period of two weeks from resumption of physical Courts.
4. The applications stand disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 1655/2021 and CRL.M.C. 1657/2021
1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the orders dated 15.06.2021 passed by the learned ASJ/Special FTC (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi in Bail Applications No. 1930/2021 and 1931/2021, respondents No. 2 in respective petitions i.e., Virender Singh and Dushyant have been admitted to anticipatory bail and regular bail in FIR No. 353/2021 registered under Sections 323/376/506/509/109/34 IPC at Police Station Bawana, Delhi.
2. The Registry is directed to anonymize the name of the petitioner in the case record as well as in the cause list.
3. This Court is constrained to note that the present petitions have been filed disclosing the identity of the prosecutrix. Section 228A IPC, which was inserted by Act 43 of 1983 and prohibits disclosure of identity of the victim of offences under Sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB or 376E subject to subsection (2), makes such an act punishable.
4. The Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena and Another v. UOI and Others reported as (2019) 2 SCC 703, while emphasizing on the social object of preventing social victimization or ostracism of the victim of sexual offence, also envisaged the situation where such a victim has to approach the Court by way of an application/petition/appeal and observed as under:
"28 .....We are clearly of the view that such a victim can move an application to the court praying that she may be permitted to file a petition under a pseudonymous name e.g. 'X' or 'Y' or any other such coded identity that she may choose. However, she may not be permitted to give some other name which may indirectly harm another person. There may be certain documents in which her name will have to be disclosed; e.g., the power of attorney and affidavit(s) which may have to be filed as per the Rules of the Court. The Court should normally allow such applicant to file the petition/appeal in a pseudonymous name. Where a victim files an appeal we direct that such victim can file such an appeal by showing her name as 'X' or 'Y' along with an application for non-disclosure of the name of the victim. In a sealed envelope to be filed with the appeal she can enclose the document(s), in which she can reveal her identity as required by the Rules of the appellate court. The Court can verify the details but in the material which is placed in the public domain the name of the victim shall not be disclosed. Such an application should be heard by the Court in chambers and the name should not be reflected even in the cause list till such matter is decided. Any documents disclosing the name and identity of the victim should not be in the public domain."
5. The protection of identity is also mandated where victims are minor and fall within purview of the POCSO Act, 2012; and also, when there is a case of 'child in conflict with law' in which case Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides for protection of identity of children. The protection of identity is also applicable to matrimonial cases as directed vide order dated 11.06.2015 by a Division Bench of this Court in MAT. APP. (F.C.) 78/2015 titled as X v. Z.
6. This Court has issued repeated directions to the Registry to mask the names in individual cases but the issue is recurring. In this view of the matter, the Registry is directed to take necessary steps in consultation with the IT department of the Court to ensure that the listing performa itself has requisite columns to identify such class of cases so that the identity of such person is properly masked at the threshold. The Registry shall also place a copy of this order before the IT Committee of this Court.
7. Issue notice. Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, learned APP for the State, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1/State and seeks some time to file the Status Report. On the petitioner taking necessary steps, notice shall now be issued to respondents by all permissible modes including electronic, returnable on 17.08.2021.
8. In the meantime, Status Report, if any, be filed and placed on record by the State before the next date of hearing.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J JULY 29, 2021 'dc' Click here to check corrigendum, if any